Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I don't think that guy's gonna live long enough to make the game against us.

He was born in the same year as Michael O'Neill! (Few months earlier)

I suspect "lifestyle choices" may have something to do with it - seems he's long been a 40-a-day smoker, even when playing eg for Pompey. According to Peter Crouch: "He'd smoke before the game, at half-time in the showers and after the game as well. Red Marlboros, too. The real heavy stuff."

And it wasn't just the fags, either:

"If there was no booze(?), I would be the best in the world," said Robert Prosineck, who, in addition to his favorite Zagorje cocktail, was a great acquaintance of Marlboro and whiskey. That's why he later had serious health problems, but he said he did not drink in the last few years. The cigarette was still there, but the doctors did not forbid it.

Let's hope no-one introduces him to the pleasures of Buckfast when he comes to Belfast.

1. Like ourselves, they've lost, or will soon be losing, a few important veterans after their failed 2018 WC qualification campaign;

2. Prosinecki seems to favour a 4-2-3-1 formation, with Edin Djeko as the obvious spearhead up front. If so, I wonder whether Michael will play three at the back against them, since that formation best suits countering a team which has two* up front, not one;

3. Re Buckfast Kid's above query, it seems that BiH may no longer be able to rely on the the children/grandchildren of their huge expatriate population opting to represent their ancestral homeland, as before. However this may be made up by increasing numbers of locally-born Bosnian Serbs and Croats choosing to represent BiH, rather than their ethnic homelands.

* - Three CB's vs two strikers means you can man-mark both of them and have one left over to cover. Whereas three vs one means there's one marking and one covering CB, with the third one redundant.

Yes but that enables one of your wing backs to play high and support the front men without too much worry on defensive duties as there is a spare defender, thus hopefully getting into positions where there is an overload in the attacking 3rd.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Yes but that enables one of your wing backs to play high and support the front men without too much worry on defensive duties as there is a spare defender, thus hopefully getting into positions where there is an overload in the attacking 3rd.

If you're playing 3 at the back, both your Wing Backs can get forward without worrying overly much about defensive duties etc, esp if their three CB's push up with a high line.

And remember too that teams playing three at the back don't mind pushing attacking opposition players out wide, since they can't score from there and if/when they cross it into the middle, you have 3 CB's available to head it out or clear.

Meanwhile, opponents who try to negate that by using inverted wingers, find that they're turning into a crowded central midfield, which will always have at least one holding/defensive midfielder, and often two.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

If you're playing 3 at the back, both your Wing Backs can get forward without worrying overly much about defensive duties etc, esp if their three CB's push up with a high line.

And remember too that teams playing three at the back don't mind pushing attacking opposition players out wide, since they can't score from there and if/when they cross it into the middle, you have 3 CB's available to head it out or clear.

Meanwhile, opponents who try to negate that by using inverted wingers, find that they're turning into a crowded central midfield, which will always have at least one holding/defensive midfielder, and often two.

All very good valid points I just thought from your original quote that you thought it would make no sense playing 3 at the back against 1 striker which isn't the case as there as so many ways to turn it into your advantage tactically.

Anyway I'm sure Michael is well prepped as usual

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

All very good valid points I just thought from your original quote that you thought it would make no sense playing 3 at the back against 1 striker which isn't the case as there as so many ways to turn it into your advantage tactically.

Anyway I'm sure Michael is well prepped as usual

Agree - In the end, it's not the system, but how you use it which counts most, esp insofar as it suits the players available to you.